-- Larry Masinter wrote:
>
> Since authoring tools are going to allow users to define classes using
> their native languages, perhaps the authoring tools could also
> canonicalize the names so there is no mismatch?
The authoring tool cannot do it because:
1. The tool may rely on the operating system to do language dependent
procesing, such as keystroke to character code conversion, and we cannot
depend on this in an international environment
2. There is no standard canonical representation, in the sense that some
people claim for a composed canonical representation and others for a
decomposed and there is no solution for this argument. Moreover, with
the composed solution there is a dependency on the currency of software,
as the task of defining all composed characters is on-going and
interminable. Every now and then a lost tribe will be discovered
somewhere in the universe who happen to be using a up to then unthought
of composed character.
The canonization must be done by the browser and by the server. There
may be more than one source for class definitions at different servers,
such as a standard set plus an author defined set, and each server may
have its own idea of a canonical representation.
Since both methods of canonical representation and comparison would give
the same results internally, there is no real problem.
--
Jonathan Rosenne
JR Consulting
P O Box 33641, Tel Aviv, Israel
Phone: +972 50 246 522 Fax: +972 9 56 73 53
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Jonathan_Rosenne/